If "works" is defined as "being able to fulfill the real-life purposes for which you have engaged in the training activity," then being able to control pissed off drunk people is partial proof of functionality. You were able to use what you learned in real-life to bring about the intended or desired results.

It's not proof of functionality. You are training for the purpose of learning to defend yourself in a life-or-death scenario. Because, as you admit, if it weren't so serious, you would leave/talk your way out of it. So therefor, your training making you better at bouncing (without using any martial arts skills whatsoever) is completely unrelated.

Drunk angry people aren't trying to harm you, and the ones that are generally aren't very capable due to being so drunk. It takes a lot of liquid courage to try and physically harm a bouncer. Not to mention the other people who have already mentioned this is a false appeal to authority to begin with, considering a few of the people posting here have bounced before, and have trained in some of the martial arts you are defending (specifically aikido).

Your defense of these arts isn't unique, nor is your experience of them. You are defending them with the same tired arguments that everyone uses when facing the cold reality that fighting isn't what it looks like in the movies and martial arts demonstrations, and that they are not training in something proven to work.

Well... I'll answer your question with a question:
Does the martial art being discussed have proven effectiveness against live resisting opponents with intent to do harm upon the practitioner?

At least in terms of Shou Shu, that claim is indeed being made. For right or wrong, many of the old-school Shou Shu guys came from rough neighborhoods and regularly picked fights in order to test their skills. There are many, many stories around about the upper level guys winning fights against multiple attackers.

It's a little beside the point. We train to fight multiple people, sometimes it works out in real-life and sometimes it doesn't. Personally, I will do what I can to not get in a fight with even one person. If I get trapped in a situation where I need to defend myself against more than one, then at least I have been training in strategies and techniques for dealing with that.

At least in terms of Shou Shu, that claim is indeed being made. For right or wrong, many of the old-school Shou Shu guys came from rough neighborhoods and regularly picked fights in order to test their skills. There are many, many stories around about the upper level guys winning fights against multiple attackers.

Man do you know how many times I heard the ole come from rough neighborhood and picked fights to test skills line with great feats of the old guard?

It's a little beside the point. We train to fight multiple people, sometimes it works out in real-life and sometimes it doesn't. Personally, I will do what I can to not get in a fight with even one person. If I get trapped in a situation where I need to defend myself against more than one, then at least I have been training in strategies and techniques for dealing with that.

Again putting faith into something you've never seen or done. Good luck with that.

Your defense of these arts isn't unique, nor is your experience of them. You are defending them with the same tired arguments that everyone uses when facing the cold reality that fighting isn't what it looks like in the movies and martial arts demonstrations, and that they are not training in something proven to work.

I'm not confident of any martial art's capability to handle real life-or-death combat. However, I am somewhat confident in some martial artist's capability to handle life-or-death combat. Shihan Chad Taylor is one such individual, and so is Shifu Tan from my old Shou Shu studio. Again, a bit of a moot point. On a bad luck day, a gang banging idiot with a switchblade could probably kill either of them.

It comes down to the skill of the individual. There is a counter-attack for every counter-attack.

No!! The drill I described was limited. Counter was pull in the hand to chest, punch at nose. None of the counter to my counter to another counter. A simple drill. Please try it. You can ask your untrained friends to help.

Yeahh

Originally Posted by Gezere

Again putting faith into something you've never seen or done. Good luck with that.

:Thoughtful:

Just again thinking back to the battlefields of India, China, and Japan... Out there, you were not engaged in one-on-one fights with opponents who gave into your movements. You had your weapon, sure, but so did the guys you were facing. Why is it impossible to fathom that one person could have faced many and come out unharmed or without life-threatening injury? Why is it impossible to fathom that skills such as those still exist and can be trained in?

Just again thinking back to the battlefields of India, China, and Japan... Out there, you were not engaged in one-on-one fights with opponents who gave into your movements. You had your weapon, sure, but so did the guys you were facing. Why is it impossible to fathom that one person could have faced many and come out unharmed or without life-threatening injury? Why is it impossible to fathom that skills such as those still exist and can be trained in?

To me, it's not unfathomable. It seems like common-sense.

No, common sense dictates they learned ONE on ONE like all of the murals, paintings, statues, scholarly articles and training we see to this day. Then you may be put in a situation that may cause you to apply your SINGLE ATTACKER BASED SCENARIO to use in a multiple attack situation.

Applying something in WAR is not training, that's where your logic fails.

Just again thinking back to the battlefields of India, China, and Japan... Out there, you were not engaged in one-on-one fights with opponents who gave into your movements. You had your weapon, sure, but so did the guys you were facing. Why is it impossible to fathom that one person could have faced many and come out unharmed or without life-threatening injury? Why is it impossible to fathom that skills such as those still exist and can be trained in?

To me, it's not unfathomable. It seems like common-sense.

Um, we are discussing one vs. many in an unarmed confrontation in this thread. A battlefield confrontation is many vs. many, everyone has weapons.

Just again thinking back to the battlefields of India, China, and Japan... Out there, you were not engaged in one-on-one fights with opponents who gave into your movements. You had your weapon, sure, but so did the guys you were facing. Why is it impossible to fathom that one person could have faced many and come out unharmed or without life-threatening injury? Why is it impossible to fathom that skills such as those still exist and can be trained in?

To me, it's not unfathomable. It seems like common-sense.

Why its unfathomable is because it is a very romanticized view of warfare. Being that close in combat it is extremely rare to come out unscathed, extremely. Even if you survive you are bound to take some damage. You're idea stems more from movies and tales of combat and not reality. Even on the modern battlefield, which I have been on, being that close to an enemy greatly increases your risk of being injured.